New reports have emerged suggesting that Nokia is planning to boldly go where other device makers fear to tread: the Finnish firm is reportedly planning to release a tablet running Microsoft's ill-fated Windows RT operating system.
Murmurs that Nokia is working on a Surface RT competitor have been buzzing around for months now …

"The guy's thumb seems to be hovering in mid air, not holding the tablet."

The person holding the device may be trying to minimise skin contact with it. Keep in mind that this device is based on a platform that has already sunk, yet it burns under the waves and it could destroy a once highly successful multinational company.

With that in mind it seems very prudent to minimise contact with this highly toxic device, although the person in the photo really should be wearing a heavy apron, some heavy gauntlets, welding mask and have a very big quenching bucket near to hand.

Re: That picture looks rather photoshopped

Plumbing new depths

Is there no limit to this madman Elop's depravity? Why is he trying to take the share price to new lows? Is his severence clause so attractive that hes getting impatient? This psychopath must be stopped. For the sake of humanity.

Re: Plumbing new depths

I agree, he really has gone of the deep end with this tablet idea. They simply do not have the cash to waste on such a risky venture. Latest info suggests they will run out of cash and face bankruptcy in late 2014 or early 2015. They currently hold 4 billion euros in cash and have about 5 billion in debt. (See: http://computingcompendium.blogspot.com/2013/08/nokia-may-die-taking-windows-phone-8.html for details). Even if it were the case that Microsoft is somehow picking up the tab (and I doubt this), it really couldn't make sense to do this, just on the grounds of loss of focus.

Just the other day a VP at Nokia was complaining about Microsoft being too slow about getting WP8 apps. Wait till that guy sees the poor selection in the Windows Store. Worse, many of the ones in the Windows Store won't even run on RT.

Re: Plumbing new depths

Of course, optical zoom is usually better than digital zoom, but Nokia's PureView is not your granddad's digital zoom. And optical zoom brings its own problems with distortion outside the comfort zone of the optics, which will likely be significant at this size. Better picture quality generally calls for a larger sensor, which is why Nokia probably ditched optical zoom because fixed optics for a large sensor would be large enough and zoom would only make things bigger. I know my Canon 18-55 kit lens is not the best example, but at 55mm the effective aperture is tiny and at 18mm the distortion round the edges can annoy me. Anyway, sometimes, I shoot wider when it's darker to get a bigger aperture and then crop to zoom after getting the photo off the camera, which is effectively what the PureView system does, only with a single button press instead of me faffing around.

Not to mention Facebook will probably mangle the photo anyway, and very few people will be taking photos that their mates will want to look at 1:1.

NB: No, I don't own a PureView phone, I'm an iFan, but I am very impressed with what Nokia achieved. If Samsung can produce good quality optical zoom that doesn't have mechanical issues, I'll be very impressed.

Re: That would be 'Sirius' as in Sirius Cybernetics Corporation

I am not really sure why windows RT exists, i understand why there is Windows 8 (for X64/86 cpus) and Windows phone 8 but why not just kill RT and allow phone 8 be used on larger screens or merge phone+RT into one version that can be used either on a phone or tablet/laptop

Don't feel bad, no one understands why RT exists or who it was even targeted at. Everything surrounding it has been confusing, vague, contradictory and occasionally insulting with the only clear functionality being the ability to buy apps, but failing even in that as they forgot to build any apps to buy...

The Modern UI is what I really like about Windows 8, it works well on everything from my phone, through my tablet to my desktop - well, actually, my desktop is my tablet plugged into a dock with external monitor, keyboard and multi-touch touchpad; but the interface works equally well, whether I am using the touch screen or the touchpad.

Another big bonus is, the tablet goes with me everywhere, so I have my data with me all the time, even if I don't have an internet connection, I can carry on working and when I get back to my desk, I don't have to wait for the data to sync to the cloud, before I can work on my "desktop".

Having access to the same apps and the same data, no matter which 'mode' I am in is great.

Re: I am not really sure why windows RT exists

> Windows RT is a thin client but has built in lightweight applications, like those old green screen terminals with built in calculator.

Nice try, but wrong.

The only RT products so far are touch tablets with 10inch screens. These would be completely unsuitable for running existing desktop software (actually running on a server). That software is unsuitable for touch and requires keyboard and mouse. 10inch is too small for desktop software where pixel level mouse accuracy is required. Any on-screen keyboard would get in the way of the input areas - because the software is not designed to work that way. Attaching a keyboard means its just a too small laptop (and Surface won't be used on a lap - it just doesn't work at that).

Re: I am not really sure why windows RT exists

Re: I am not really sure why windows RT exists

>> "That software is unsuitable for touch and requires keyboard and mouse"

> Erm - but Surface RT has full USB support - it supports 400 million devices out of the box!....Including....USB keyboards and mice!

Sure, keyboards and mice can be attached, as they can with most other tablets too. But the desktop based software is most useful with, and probably _requires_, keyboard and mouse. So the task is done better with a laptop with a bigger screen - and that may be cheaper too.

Re: I am not really sure why windows RT exists

It would but the point is, if you write for WinRT you can address any implementation of Windows, be it Server, 8.x or RT.

The point of Windows RT was to provide an ARM-powered device which was genuinely useful (unlike the iPad which is basically a portable telly if you're going to be honest) and in some bizarro way, show that Windows doesn't actually need a desktop in order to do stuff, including content creation.

I suspect MS hoped that developers would instantly start targeting WinRT as a development platform, which was stupid. 99% of developers work in corporate environments, corporates are still running Windows 7 having only just upgraded their shitty XP boxes and are not going to upgrade again for at least three years.

$900 million is a lot of money for a prototype, but that's what Windows RT boxes are. A prototype. A look at where things are going, not at where things currently are

Re: I am not really sure why windows RT exists

> if you write for WinRT you can address any implementation of Windows, be it Server, 8.x or RT.

Why would any server be running a GUI, let alone a touch based one that gives apps the full screen or just 2 or 3 splits?

> (unlike the iPad which is basically a portable telly if you're going to be honest)

That must be why they are selling so poorly.

> show that Windows doesn't actually need a desktop in order to do stuff, including content creation.

Office RT uses the desktop Win32 API and not TIFKAM. Office works poorly (according to reviews) with touch, it needs the keyboard and mouse/touchpad to be useful. This then requires that it be set on a firm surface such as a desktop. That's a failure then.

> $900 million is a lot of money for a prototype,

That figure was just the partial writedown on approx 6million devices. When Surface 2 is announced then these will be written down again or written off for more hundreds of millions.

> but that's what Windows RT boxes are. A prototype.

'Prototypes' are made in small numbers. I am sure that actual prototypes did exist, perhaps in several different forms. Making several million 'prototypes' would be major incompetence.

Re: I am not really sure why windows RT exists

Why would any server be running a GUI, let alone a touch based one that gives apps the full screen or just 2 or 3 splits?

So you can administer it from a tablet device, obviously.

> (unlike the iPad which is basically a portable telly if you're going to be honest)

That must be why they are selling so poorly.

They're hardly selling at PC levels, are they? Even with the alleged "death of the PC", the tablet market is a minnow by profit comparison and the iPad doesn't even rule that. It's a portable telly. A consumer device for consumers to consume stuff with. Not what Windows RT was intended for.

Office RT uses the desktop Win32 API and not TIFKAM. Office works poorly (according to reviews) with touch, it needs the keyboard and mouse/touchpad to be useful. This then requires that it be set on a firm surface such as a desktop. That's a failure then.

Mostly, I agree, except for two issues.

1. There's OneNote RT which does indeed work on Metro and is likely to be the way that Office RT is going. The rest of Office RT currently simply an ARM port of the x86 code. I suspect that's more about time to implement than any conscious and permanent decision. So it's not a failure; it's an incomplete piece of work with a kludgy workaround.

2. Will you cut it out with the "not useable on your lap" nonsense? You clearly haven't used a Surface so why do you insist that you "know" this?. I am using the test Surface RT machine we have in the office right now. With the keyboard. On my lap. It's fine. I could use a flatter angle but it's perfectly workable. The 1366x768 resolution is actually a benefit since everything's big enough to see anyway.

> It's a portable telly. A consumer device for consumers to consume stuff with. Not what Windows RT was intended for.

You may sneer, but it is what many people want. It already has, as does Android, sufficiently capable apps for 'Office' type functionality and can connect to web based solutions or use RDP, VNC and many others.

Re: I am not really sure why windows RT exists

>> Why would any server be running a GUI, let alone a touch based one that gives apps the full screen or just 2 or 3 splits?

> So you can administer it from a tablet device, obviously.

I have been able to administer my servers remotely, using a tablet even, for years and they _don't_ run GUI at all. They run WebMin (available since 1997) accessible by any browser, even a phone (as long as it is allowed in the config).

Re: I am not really sure why windows RT exists

> No-one's denying that for a second, and I'm not actually sneering. I merely reminded you that consumption is not the purpose of Windows RT, or certainly not the sole purpose.

You were sneering by calling the iPad a 'portable telly' when it is just as capable of producing content and being used as a terminal to central servers as RT is. It may be that the keyboards are third party (which means choice and flexibility) and the software is different.

I also find that the 16:9 screen of Surface is targetted more at watching movies than producing A4 documents, especially when it is stuck in landscape by its keyboard and stand. A 4:3 screen is much more usable for content creation and is particularly so when it can be put into landscape or portrait mode when word processing and clipped into the keyboard/cover/stand combination that are available to suit the various users' needs.

It RT was intended to be used for content creation then Microsoft has done a very poor job.

large-screen Lumia makes sense

Making a bigger Lumia for browsing/editing makes sense for Nokia just like Samsung or even Blackberry, the question is whether to use WinPhone or RT? But given the kernel is the same, the question is really “should nokia follow the shi1e UI of RT or stick with something touch oriented? “ (we touch things, RT fakes gestures).

Safe to bet: [1] Nokia’s RT tablet will follow the clean UI of WinPhone [2] huge stockpiles of MS Surface will be “given” to students/developers, rather than sold cheap